Tweet
ARMENIAN ISSUE IN THE 1980S: FROM TERROR TO PARLIAMENTS
by Sedat Laciner
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 20 2006
In the first half of 1980s, the Armenian terror was continued, but
the next half was the time when the Armenian terror stopped at once.
However, the problem continued to exist, even more strongly, amongst
the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Western countries. In
addition, in this period of time, the approach of Turkey towards the
Armenian problem seriously changed. In this new era which was shaped
by the coup d'etat and the international attitude towards Turkey,
Turkey began to approach the problem from different perspectives. The
new face of Armenian terror and Turkey's reaction to this change
determined the developments in this period.
Initially, with effect of the 12 September coup d'etat in Turkey,
Turkey's policies against Armenian terrorism became sharper. Surely the
reason of this attitude was that the terrorist acts of the Armenians
peaked in the late 1970s and at the beginning of 1980s.
Since the first day of their rule, the military government
placed struggling against Armenian terror in the first line of its
priorities. The method of struggling, however, remained as a matter
of debate for a long time. On the other hand, the coup d'etat that
broke out in Turkey in 1980 gave an impression to the rest of the
world that serious human rights violations are occuring in Turkey,
a situation which were added as negative points in the square of
Turkey. Bringing the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Europe
to a halt, the military government experienced a serious communication
gap with European countries against the Armenian attacks and have
not been able to express its arguments to the rest of the world.
Despite paying special attention to the Armenian problem, the
military government could not achieve a significant progress towards
solution. Being deprived of even fundamental information in those days,
Turkey moved back and forth between two extreme points: One group
were claiming that the toughest reaction must be shown against the
Armenian problem. They were thinking that these acts meant a resurge
for the spirit of Sevres and they were asserting that relations with
the West should be decreased at a minimum level and even Turkey must
cease to be a member of NATO. Whereas another group was advising that
the matter must not be exagerated too much.
According to this group, as it is fact that those who allege should
prove their allegation, it was Armenians themselves who needed to prove
their claims, and by dwelling upon the matter so much, Turkey was
popularising the problem more. The second group also suggested that
the allegations of Armenians should be replied back by scientific
publication both in Turkish and in other languages and the matter
should be left to historians to explain, rather than dealing with it
as a matter of politics. While the second idea found its adherents
in the environs of the Foreign Ministry, the first idea was mainly
pronounced in radical political parties and the army. Both groups
have their cons and pros. However, the experience lived in 1980s
showed that both of these ideas are deficient and both attitudes
caused Turkey to lose a great time in diplomacy. In this period of
time, Turkey suffered a serious disease and could not approach the
Armenian problem from a multi-dimensional perspective by establishing
an institutional coordination. In other words, in those days, different
solution methods and strategies could have been generated for different
aspects of the problem. By defining different strategies for terrorist
acts, historical claims and political side of the problem, we could
have worked for the same goal from diverse directions. Whereas Turkey
have not been able to escape from exhibiting emotional and reactionary
behaviour in a process timing of which was completely determined
by others. Actually this was not a surprising situation. Because,
relating to the Armenian problem, the stage where Turkey reached at
the beginning of 1980s was just the stage of "What is this problem
about?, What do Armenians really mean?" According to what we learnt
from Kamuran Gurun, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry
at the time, Turkey did not follow the books, documents, journals
etc. containing the Armenian allegations and did not even form an
archive related to the subject.
In 1980, the Turkish archives were closed for research, and the
information available in the archives of other countries were not
seriously examined and brought to Turkey.91 All these studies and
works were started only after the assasination of about 40 high Turkish
officials by the Armenian terrorists. However, as we mentioned earlier,
it was both too late and the things that were done were too little. As
if suddenly woken up by the Armenian terrorist attacks or decisions
that are taken in the favour of Armenians, throughout 1980s, Ankara
held headlong meetings, announced messages of condemnation, formed
nonfunctional and ineffective committees and some people were given
the duty of publishing brochures justifying the statements of the
Turkish side, etc. So many Turkish publication was released making
the propaganda to the Turkish community itself showing that Turkish
is on the right side. Documents and materials sent abroad either
rotted in the storerooms of Turkish embassies or eliminated by the
Armenians. In short, the efforts were focused in only one direction
and rather being inspectory, they were not any more than repeating
the same tongue twisters. Because of this, as these efforts did not
contribute anything to the relations of Turkey with other countries,
they neither generated a factual or decent strategy, nor properly
presented the Turkish point of view about the Armenian problem. In
each case, Turkish government returned to the start and met the
problem is if it is being experienced the first time.
Another feature of 1980s related to the Armenian problem is that the
terrorist acts gradually transformed into a "civil fight". Especially
during 1970s, radical Armenian groups saw terror as the prominent
mean for fighting against Turkey and have been successful in winning
support of many Armenian people. These attacks were sometimes
received with tolerance and the attackers were not punished as they
deserved. The killers of Turkish diplomats were not even qualified as
"terrorists" by the Western media and in a way they supplied support
for terrorism. All these events, however, indirectly happened.
Although they criticised Turkey in this matter and did not spend
necessary effort for catching the attackers, nearly all countries are
of the same idea that Armenian attacks were terrorist acts. Whereas,
responding with empathy towards the Armenian terrorists, they could
understand why the terrorist involve in a terrorist act, and even
some Western press vindicated the terrorists. As we mentioned short
while ago, there seem to be a condemnation from official mouths and
Turkey was not openly opposed. This scenery has radically changed in
1980s with the decisions taken in parliaments and local councils of
foreign countries. Only then other countries began to oppose Turkey.
In many countries like the USA and France offficial decisions
favouring Armenians were negotiated and they came to a certain stage in
their effrots. Despite denying any change in their foreign policies,
government officials and parliament members of these countries openly
blamed and falsely accused Turkey of committing genocide. Hence, the
problem was no longer a problem between Armenians and Turks, but it
became a direct part of Turkey's relations with other countries. These
both greatly harmed Turkey's mutual contacts and deepened the Western
antipathy and suspicion towards the outside world felt by the Turks
in those days.
Armenian Strategy in the 1980s
Since an independent Armenian state was not established yet,
the Armenian strategy during the 1980s was mainly focused upon the
diaspora movement. Emotional idealist groups have been successful in
joining the monetary support came from Western countries together
with the radical Armenian youth who came from Lebanon and other
Middle Eastern countries with strong tendency to violence. However,
in the mid-1980s, it was thought that the terror completed its task
and with a sudden occurance as if received a command from a centre,
all Armenian terrorist acts were stopped. This did not mean that the
foundation of the terrorist attacks were demolished. On the contrary,
some radical groups started to take up arms and continued their
training and stockpiling to utilise when necessary. These activities
and effort, however, were mainly directed towards providing support
for other terrorist groups (especially PKK) opposing Turkey and apart
from a few occasions, they deliberately stay away from acts that can
be called Armenian terror.
Forcing governments to recognise the so called genocide has been the
main occupation in the first stage of the strategy followed in the
civilian field. According to this strategy, all Armenian communities
were oblidged to perform acts to convince the highest offices,
councils and parliaments in villages, towns, cities, states and
countries about the Armenian claims. Laws, decisions, condemnations,
shortly anything that will force Turkey to accept Armenian allegations
would be beneficial for the Armenian cause. If they could not
obtain an immediate decision to be taken by the parliaments of
the countries, they concentrated upon local councils and waited
for an appropriate time to take a further step. Thus, all Turkish
fortresses would be destroted one by one and the whole world would
support the Armenian claims and apply pressure over Turkey. Wherever
the biggest deficiency of this strategy is not realising that such
pressures are taken completely negatively in Turkey and perceived
with a severe hostility. Such pressures coming from the West caused
a lack of confidence in these states. Especially those pressures that
are thought to be unjust and biased oppressions have strengthened the
oppression groups. There many cases of this consequence happened in
the process of full membership to the EU and even during the Ottoman
period. The most significant instrument reinforcing the Western
opponents in Turkey has always been the wrong policies of the West.
Especially when, not the interest of the West itself, but the interest
of a third party like the Armenians is under concern, it is extremely
optimist to think that this strategy will effectively work.
When the period of time elapsed during 1980s are examined, it can
be seen that this strategy triggered prejudices and distrust towards
the West in Turkey, and recognising the Armenian
assertions have attracted the attention of the Turkish public more
upon the Armenian problem and raised greater oppositon towards
Armenians. The role played by the Greek Cypriots and Armenians in
the PKK terrorism have caused an automatic rejection of all demands
coming from this ternary collaboration.
The second big stage of the Armenian strategy is to establish a direct
correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and the so called Armenian
genocide and labeling those who do not accept this as deniers. As
it is known that the word "denier" is literally used for those who
do not recognise the mass extermination of Jews in Germany and it is
considered as a big shame in the West and even legally a crime in some
countries. In every place where Armenian assertions are mentioned, they
started to also mention the Jewish genocide and frequently emphasized
that Jewish genocide was actually inspired by the so called Armenian
massacre and claimed that all great mass destructions were always
committed by the Turks in the history. All those who defended the
opposite was accused of being a denier.
In the 1980s, another leg of the big Armenian strategy was to form
a veritable genocide industry amongst the Armenian communties. All
Armenian artists, businessmen, teachers, politicians, etc. were forced
to use their talents somehow for the Armenian cause. This pressuring
which was mainly felt as a social pressure, was sometimes turned
into violence. All film-makers, actors and singers who utilised the
Armenian cause in their dramas, films or songs have been awarded by
the Armenian community and were treated with great respect and honour.
Another leg of the Armenian strategy is standing on the education. In
the field of education in general, they tried to include the
genocide and together with this the so called Armenian genocide in the
curriculums of the Western countries. They gave a special attention to
the primary educational programs and they attained this in many states
of America. They also sought help from Jewish groups for this attempt.
Yet another leg of the strategy is formed by mischievous activities
focused upon destroying the relations between Turkey and the European
Community. Sensing the determination of Turkey in entering the EU,
Armenians claimed this time that Turkey must first admit the so called
Armenian genocide to be a member of the EU and they forced this to
be accepted in some EC committees.
Translated from Turkish
June 2006 USAK - Ankara based 'International Strategic Research
Organisation' Author is director of USAK & Davos Economic Forum Young
Global Leader 2006
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Sedat Laciner
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 20 2006
In the first half of 1980s, the Armenian terror was continued, but
the next half was the time when the Armenian terror stopped at once.
However, the problem continued to exist, even more strongly, amongst
the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Western countries. In
addition, in this period of time, the approach of Turkey towards the
Armenian problem seriously changed. In this new era which was shaped
by the coup d'etat and the international attitude towards Turkey,
Turkey began to approach the problem from different perspectives. The
new face of Armenian terror and Turkey's reaction to this change
determined the developments in this period.
Initially, with effect of the 12 September coup d'etat in Turkey,
Turkey's policies against Armenian terrorism became sharper. Surely the
reason of this attitude was that the terrorist acts of the Armenians
peaked in the late 1970s and at the beginning of 1980s.
Since the first day of their rule, the military government
placed struggling against Armenian terror in the first line of its
priorities. The method of struggling, however, remained as a matter
of debate for a long time. On the other hand, the coup d'etat that
broke out in Turkey in 1980 gave an impression to the rest of the
world that serious human rights violations are occuring in Turkey,
a situation which were added as negative points in the square of
Turkey. Bringing the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Europe
to a halt, the military government experienced a serious communication
gap with European countries against the Armenian attacks and have
not been able to express its arguments to the rest of the world.
Despite paying special attention to the Armenian problem, the
military government could not achieve a significant progress towards
solution. Being deprived of even fundamental information in those days,
Turkey moved back and forth between two extreme points: One group
were claiming that the toughest reaction must be shown against the
Armenian problem. They were thinking that these acts meant a resurge
for the spirit of Sevres and they were asserting that relations with
the West should be decreased at a minimum level and even Turkey must
cease to be a member of NATO. Whereas another group was advising that
the matter must not be exagerated too much.
According to this group, as it is fact that those who allege should
prove their allegation, it was Armenians themselves who needed to prove
their claims, and by dwelling upon the matter so much, Turkey was
popularising the problem more. The second group also suggested that
the allegations of Armenians should be replied back by scientific
publication both in Turkish and in other languages and the matter
should be left to historians to explain, rather than dealing with it
as a matter of politics. While the second idea found its adherents
in the environs of the Foreign Ministry, the first idea was mainly
pronounced in radical political parties and the army. Both groups
have their cons and pros. However, the experience lived in 1980s
showed that both of these ideas are deficient and both attitudes
caused Turkey to lose a great time in diplomacy. In this period of
time, Turkey suffered a serious disease and could not approach the
Armenian problem from a multi-dimensional perspective by establishing
an institutional coordination. In other words, in those days, different
solution methods and strategies could have been generated for different
aspects of the problem. By defining different strategies for terrorist
acts, historical claims and political side of the problem, we could
have worked for the same goal from diverse directions. Whereas Turkey
have not been able to escape from exhibiting emotional and reactionary
behaviour in a process timing of which was completely determined
by others. Actually this was not a surprising situation. Because,
relating to the Armenian problem, the stage where Turkey reached at
the beginning of 1980s was just the stage of "What is this problem
about?, What do Armenians really mean?" According to what we learnt
from Kamuran Gurun, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry
at the time, Turkey did not follow the books, documents, journals
etc. containing the Armenian allegations and did not even form an
archive related to the subject.
In 1980, the Turkish archives were closed for research, and the
information available in the archives of other countries were not
seriously examined and brought to Turkey.91 All these studies and
works were started only after the assasination of about 40 high Turkish
officials by the Armenian terrorists. However, as we mentioned earlier,
it was both too late and the things that were done were too little. As
if suddenly woken up by the Armenian terrorist attacks or decisions
that are taken in the favour of Armenians, throughout 1980s, Ankara
held headlong meetings, announced messages of condemnation, formed
nonfunctional and ineffective committees and some people were given
the duty of publishing brochures justifying the statements of the
Turkish side, etc. So many Turkish publication was released making
the propaganda to the Turkish community itself showing that Turkish
is on the right side. Documents and materials sent abroad either
rotted in the storerooms of Turkish embassies or eliminated by the
Armenians. In short, the efforts were focused in only one direction
and rather being inspectory, they were not any more than repeating
the same tongue twisters. Because of this, as these efforts did not
contribute anything to the relations of Turkey with other countries,
they neither generated a factual or decent strategy, nor properly
presented the Turkish point of view about the Armenian problem. In
each case, Turkish government returned to the start and met the
problem is if it is being experienced the first time.
Another feature of 1980s related to the Armenian problem is that the
terrorist acts gradually transformed into a "civil fight". Especially
during 1970s, radical Armenian groups saw terror as the prominent
mean for fighting against Turkey and have been successful in winning
support of many Armenian people. These attacks were sometimes
received with tolerance and the attackers were not punished as they
deserved. The killers of Turkish diplomats were not even qualified as
"terrorists" by the Western media and in a way they supplied support
for terrorism. All these events, however, indirectly happened.
Although they criticised Turkey in this matter and did not spend
necessary effort for catching the attackers, nearly all countries are
of the same idea that Armenian attacks were terrorist acts. Whereas,
responding with empathy towards the Armenian terrorists, they could
understand why the terrorist involve in a terrorist act, and even
some Western press vindicated the terrorists. As we mentioned short
while ago, there seem to be a condemnation from official mouths and
Turkey was not openly opposed. This scenery has radically changed in
1980s with the decisions taken in parliaments and local councils of
foreign countries. Only then other countries began to oppose Turkey.
In many countries like the USA and France offficial decisions
favouring Armenians were negotiated and they came to a certain stage in
their effrots. Despite denying any change in their foreign policies,
government officials and parliament members of these countries openly
blamed and falsely accused Turkey of committing genocide. Hence, the
problem was no longer a problem between Armenians and Turks, but it
became a direct part of Turkey's relations with other countries. These
both greatly harmed Turkey's mutual contacts and deepened the Western
antipathy and suspicion towards the outside world felt by the Turks
in those days.
Armenian Strategy in the 1980s
Since an independent Armenian state was not established yet,
the Armenian strategy during the 1980s was mainly focused upon the
diaspora movement. Emotional idealist groups have been successful in
joining the monetary support came from Western countries together
with the radical Armenian youth who came from Lebanon and other
Middle Eastern countries with strong tendency to violence. However,
in the mid-1980s, it was thought that the terror completed its task
and with a sudden occurance as if received a command from a centre,
all Armenian terrorist acts were stopped. This did not mean that the
foundation of the terrorist attacks were demolished. On the contrary,
some radical groups started to take up arms and continued their
training and stockpiling to utilise when necessary. These activities
and effort, however, were mainly directed towards providing support
for other terrorist groups (especially PKK) opposing Turkey and apart
from a few occasions, they deliberately stay away from acts that can
be called Armenian terror.
Forcing governments to recognise the so called genocide has been the
main occupation in the first stage of the strategy followed in the
civilian field. According to this strategy, all Armenian communities
were oblidged to perform acts to convince the highest offices,
councils and parliaments in villages, towns, cities, states and
countries about the Armenian claims. Laws, decisions, condemnations,
shortly anything that will force Turkey to accept Armenian allegations
would be beneficial for the Armenian cause. If they could not
obtain an immediate decision to be taken by the parliaments of
the countries, they concentrated upon local councils and waited
for an appropriate time to take a further step. Thus, all Turkish
fortresses would be destroted one by one and the whole world would
support the Armenian claims and apply pressure over Turkey. Wherever
the biggest deficiency of this strategy is not realising that such
pressures are taken completely negatively in Turkey and perceived
with a severe hostility. Such pressures coming from the West caused
a lack of confidence in these states. Especially those pressures that
are thought to be unjust and biased oppressions have strengthened the
oppression groups. There many cases of this consequence happened in
the process of full membership to the EU and even during the Ottoman
period. The most significant instrument reinforcing the Western
opponents in Turkey has always been the wrong policies of the West.
Especially when, not the interest of the West itself, but the interest
of a third party like the Armenians is under concern, it is extremely
optimist to think that this strategy will effectively work.
When the period of time elapsed during 1980s are examined, it can
be seen that this strategy triggered prejudices and distrust towards
the West in Turkey, and recognising the Armenian
assertions have attracted the attention of the Turkish public more
upon the Armenian problem and raised greater oppositon towards
Armenians. The role played by the Greek Cypriots and Armenians in
the PKK terrorism have caused an automatic rejection of all demands
coming from this ternary collaboration.
The second big stage of the Armenian strategy is to establish a direct
correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and the so called Armenian
genocide and labeling those who do not accept this as deniers. As
it is known that the word "denier" is literally used for those who
do not recognise the mass extermination of Jews in Germany and it is
considered as a big shame in the West and even legally a crime in some
countries. In every place where Armenian assertions are mentioned, they
started to also mention the Jewish genocide and frequently emphasized
that Jewish genocide was actually inspired by the so called Armenian
massacre and claimed that all great mass destructions were always
committed by the Turks in the history. All those who defended the
opposite was accused of being a denier.
In the 1980s, another leg of the big Armenian strategy was to form
a veritable genocide industry amongst the Armenian communties. All
Armenian artists, businessmen, teachers, politicians, etc. were forced
to use their talents somehow for the Armenian cause. This pressuring
which was mainly felt as a social pressure, was sometimes turned
into violence. All film-makers, actors and singers who utilised the
Armenian cause in their dramas, films or songs have been awarded by
the Armenian community and were treated with great respect and honour.
Another leg of the Armenian strategy is standing on the education. In
the field of education in general, they tried to include the
genocide and together with this the so called Armenian genocide in the
curriculums of the Western countries. They gave a special attention to
the primary educational programs and they attained this in many states
of America. They also sought help from Jewish groups for this attempt.
Yet another leg of the strategy is formed by mischievous activities
focused upon destroying the relations between Turkey and the European
Community. Sensing the determination of Turkey in entering the EU,
Armenians claimed this time that Turkey must first admit the so called
Armenian genocide to be a member of the EU and they forced this to
be accepted in some EC committees.
Translated from Turkish
June 2006 USAK - Ankara based 'International Strategic Research
Organisation' Author is director of USAK & Davos Economic Forum Young
Global Leader 2006
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress